US theatrical release comes just a couple months after its Sundance premiere.

The upcoming Steve Jobs biopic jOBS, starring Ashton Kutcher as Jobs and Josh Gad as Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, will be released in US theaters in April. Open Road Films announced it would distribute the film, which focuses on key moments in Jobs' life from 1971 to 2000.

The independently produced film is set to premiere as the closing film of the annual 2013 Sundance Film Festival on January 27. jOBS was directed by Michael Stern and written by Matt Whiteley, and it covers what the pair consider to be the "defining 30 years of Steve Jobs' life."

jOBS is one of two upcoming films about Jobs' life that began production after the Apple co-founder and former CEO passed away in October 2011. The other film, based on Walter Isaacson's biography and written by screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, will consist of three vignettes that take place backstage at three of Jobs' major product introductions: the original Macintosh, the NeXT Cube, and the iPod.

Oddly, both films seem to ignore the last decade of Jobs' life, which included the introduction of the iPhone, iPad, and MacBook Air. All three of those products redefined smartphones, tablets, and ultraportable laptops respectively.

Whether you're a fan of Steve Jobs or not, will you go to see jOBS? Does the all-star cast, which includes Dermot Mulroney, Lukas Haas, J.K. Simmons, Matthew Modine, James Woods, Kevin Dunn, and Lesley Ann Warren, entice you to buy a ticket? Or can you only see that guy from Dude, Where's My Car? when you see Ashton Kutcher? Tell us all about it in our latest reader poll.

It would be nice if they'd let the body cool before doing the casting. Seriously, we've had Steve Jobs shoved down our throats ever since he died. Letting him fade into the background a little before releasing movies based on his life would have been nice.

It would be nice if they'd let the body cool before doing the casting. Seriously, we've had Steve Jobs shoved down our throats ever since he died. Letting him fade into the background a little before releasing movies based on his life would have been nice.

We've had Jobs on the news for the past decade, why is it different because he's dead?

If this were the Passion of Jobs I might be more interested in watching; seeing him struggle and grow would be powerful, but I don't think Ashton would be the right person for that role.

No, because I don't expect it to be a great movie, and it isn't my cup of tea anyway. Now, if they wanted to do a Steve Jobs - Vampire Hunter thing, or a Cupertino in the Woods thing, well, I might consider it. But I would probably still wait for reviews and/or its appearance in the bargain bin at Walgreen's, or for less than $8 at Amazon.

I'll eventually see it, but there is no rush. I read his official biography, what the hell is a movie going to show me that I don't already know? I don't need to see dramatic reenactments of him crying in a board room or tearing into a random employee.

Could be interested but I am the kind of person who like Pirates of Silicon Valley and Hackers. And still seem less of a torture then The Social Network to me. At least Apple doesn't make me want to set the world on fire, has they at least have some usefulness, mostly pushing other OEM out of their mold from time to time, Facebook just make it seem like it was October 23rd, 2077.

Not to be a total wad, but somehow I doubt that when Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, Donald Knuth, Tim Berners-Lee, Steve McConnell, or any-other-tech-giant-you-care-to-name dies that'll we'll see so much fuss, and I think it really speaks about Job's and Apple's genuine selling point -- branding -- that we're seeing such a furore over his death.

Let's face it, most of his products are an MBA's wet-dream: do what the market's already doing, but make it look pretty and trendy, and then slap a giant markup on it and declare yourself a misunderstood genius (well, okay, maybe not that last bit). I swear to god, if I see another annoying hipster tell me about Jobs' many grand innovations in software engineering, I'm going to make them sit down and read Code Complete 2 -- or any other genuine work of software engineering genius -- at gunpoint.

EDIT:

OrangeCream wrote:

deviltry wrote:

I would see it if the man would have done something. Starting trends is not something like creating C language.

He created companies who did things. That's not trivial.

It's not inherently positive either. I'm not about to Godwin this thread by comparing Apple to Degesch, or any other successful Nazi-era industry, but simply being profitable isn't a mark of quality.

I would see it if the man would have done something. Starting trends is not something like creating C language.

He created companies who did things. That's not trivial.

Actually, it pretty much is.

In what universe does a business leader not matter? The guy helped fundamentally change the personal computer industry MULTIPLE times. You can argue all you want about how much technical credit he deserves in the devices he produced, but you can't deny he ran one immensely successful company.

A kid put up for adoption who is a self made millionaire (with help of course) by his twenties is the American dream. Him turning Apple around in the 90s is the American business man's dream. I don't see how you can argue he isn't important. The fact that he had his unique personality made him extremely entertaining to observe.

I would see it if the man would have done something. Starting trends is not something like creating C language.

He created companies who did things. That's not trivial.

Actually, it pretty much is.

Running businesses are not trivial, at all. This data was from 1999, but reflects the nature of Jobs starting Apple with Jobs in 1976:

Quote:

The data showed that most new businesses are very small. More than two-thirds start in the owner's home, and only 21% initially employ someone besides the owner, says Dennis, who will release the 1998 report shortly.

So with that similarity:

Quote:

For business terminations, the Wells Fargo/NFIB study uses data of the U.S. Census Bureau, which only records closures of companies with employees. Those statistics show that about half of businesses that employ people are still operating five years after they open.

So Jobs beat that 5 year 50% termination rate (Apple was still in business in 1984, after all!)

He also beat the odds dramatically in terms of 'lifetime' operations:

Quote:

The NFIB estimates that over the lifetime of a business, 39% are profitable, 30% break even, and 30% lose money, with 1% falling in the "unable to determine" category.

He specifically operated 3 businesses in his lifetime that survived the 5 year mark (Pixar, Apple, and NeXT), two of which were wildly profitable (Pixar and Apple), and the third, NeXT, probably broke even since it was never a public company and never published it's financials.

Not to be a total wad, but somehow I doubt that when Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, Donald Knuth, Tim Berners-Lee, Steve McConnell, or any-other-tech-giant-you-care-to-name dies that'll we'll see so much fuss, and I think it really speaks about Job's and Apple's genuine selling point -- branding -- that we're seeing such a furore over his death.

Let's face it, most of his products are an MBA's wet-dream: do what the market's already doing, but make it look pretty and trendy, and then slap a giant markup on it and declare yourself a misunderstood genius (well, okay, maybe not that last bit). I swear to god, if I see another annoying hipster tell me about Jobs' many grand innovations in software engineering, I'm going to make them sit down and read Code Complete 2 at gunpoint.

Exactly... although with Gates, we'll see some media circle-stroking, as the tech-villian-you-love-to-hate (although his charity work is light years beyond Jobs')... Linus and TBL would get a collective "Who??" - ask anyone on the street, most would think Linus is that kid from Peanuts with the blanket and TBL was "that guy from the London Olympics ceremony, on the computer, in the house, with the noisy-hipster-kid dance number... no, wait, wasn't that Mr. Bean??"

Not to be a total wad, but somehow I doubt that when Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, Donald Knuth, Tim Berners-Lee, Steve McConnell, or any-other-tech-giant-you-care-to-name dies that'll we'll see so much fuss, and I think it really speaks about Job's and Apple's genuine selling point -- branding -- that we're seeing such a furore over his death.

And yet the branding would fail without a product capable of living up to the brand, no? The first year sales would decline because people would be disappointed by the product and second year sales would tank because the brand would be diminished.

Neither has happened.

Quote:

Let's face it, most of his products are an MBA's wet-dream: do what the market's already doing, but make it look pretty and trendy, and then slap a giant markup on it and declare yourself a misunderstood genius (well, okay, maybe not that last bit).

Except Apple very specifically did not do what the market was already doing.

The iPod was not the market norm when it was released; CD players were. The iPhone was not the market norm, either, but Symbian smartphones, nor were MacBook Airs or iPads, when everyone had a $400 netbook or a $500 laptop, nor were sealed batteries, or annual OS updates, or 'retina displays', etc.

Apple, as an MBA case study, requires you not underestimate Apple or you end up like RIM, HTC, Palm, Microsoft, Nokia, or Sony.

Quote:

I swear to god, if I see another annoying hipster tell me about Jobs' many grand innovations in software engineering, I'm going to make them sit down and read Code Complete 2 -- or any other genuine work of software engineering genius -- at gunpoint.

Which is why I make no claims about his innovations in software engineering. His work at Apple drove usability, design, and hardware.

Quote:

EDIT:

OrangeCream wrote:

deviltry wrote:

I would see it if the man would have done something. Starting trends is not something like creating C language.

He created companies who did things. That's not trivial.

It's not inherently positive either. I'm not about to Godwin this thread by comparing Apple to Degesch, or any other successful Nazi-era industry, but simply being profitable isn't a mark of quality.

His companies outstandingly did positive things.

Pixar has made phenomenally good movies.NeXT has made reasonably good software which has formed the basis for the undeniably good HW that Apple sells today.Apple makes undeniably good software and hardware; not necessarily the best at any one thing but comprehensively and overall better than the rest of the industry.

Honestly, that would be totally boring for anyone who isn't a UNIX/C nerd.And for those who are, this is better than any movie. You'd get an F for writing code like that now, but then again we have more than 8k memory now too.